Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd
Upload
37 views

Issue: Illegal Search and Seizure of The Drugs: People of The Philippines Vs Rosa Aruta y Menguin

This document discusses several Philippine Supreme Court cases related to warrantless searches and seizures of drugs. It provides an overview of when warrantless searches are allowed under Philippine law, such as during a lawful arrest, plain view, vehicle searches, or with consent. The cases discussed involved the confiscation of marijuana during transport without a warrant. In each case, the court examined whether the arrest and search were legal or if the evidence found was "fruit of a poisoned tree" since the search or arrest was illegal.

Uploaded by

Chanelle Lunod
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
37 views

Issue: Illegal Search and Seizure of The Drugs: People of The Philippines Vs Rosa Aruta y Menguin

This document discusses several Philippine Supreme Court cases related to warrantless searches and seizures of drugs. It provides an overview of when warrantless searches are allowed under Philippine law, such as during a lawful arrest, plain view, vehicle searches, or with consent. The cases discussed involved the confiscation of marijuana during transport without a warrant. In each case, the court examined whether the arrest and search were legal or if the evidence found was "fruit of a poisoned tree" since the search or arrest was illegal.

Uploaded by

Chanelle Lunod
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

People of the Philippines vs Rosa Aruta y Menguin 5.

Customs search;
 Law enforcement officers was tipped by a guy
6. Stop and Frisk; and
named “Benjie”
 Tip said that Aling Rosa would leave for Baguio 7. Exigent and Emergency Circumstances.
carrying 8 kgs and 500 grams of Marijuana
 NARCOM officers inspected and confiscated the People of The Philippines vs Ruben Montilla y Gatdula
drugs
 Issue: Illegal search and seizure of the drugs  Police officers were informed that a drug courier
 The SC could neither sanction nor tolerate as it is a would be arriving from Baguio to Dasmarinas
clear violation of the constitutional guarantee carrying marijuana
against unreasonable search and seizure  Montilla was caught in position of a bag and carton
 No legal basis for the warrantless search  no worth 28 kilos of marijuana
probable cause  accused appellant not lawfully  He was sentenced to death
arrested  He said that if the informant has given the cops the
 With the arrest being illegal, it logically follows that information about his arrival as early as the day
the search was also illegal, it being not incidental before his apprehension, the cops should have
to a lawful arrest ample time to secure a search warrant
 Evidence cannot be used as evidence because  Issue: Whether or not the arrest conducted is legal
these are “fruits of a poisoned tree” and therefore  SC rules that the warrantless arrest and search was
must be rejected legal
 The information given to the police was too
NOTES: sketchy and the informant did not know the name
When is a warrantless search allowed? of the courier

(From Sec 2 Art 3 of the Philippine Constitution)


NOTES:
1. Warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest
A legitimate warrantless arrest, as above
recognized under Section 12, Rule 126 of the Rules
contemplated, necessarily cloaks the arresting police
of Court 8 and by prevailing jurisprudence;
officer with authority to validly search and seize from
2. Seizure of evidence in “plain view,” the elements of the offender
which are:
(1) dangerous weapons, and
a. a prior valid intrusion based on the valid
(2) those that may be used as proof of the
warrantless arrest in which the police are
commission of an offense.
legally present in the pursuit of their official
duties;

b. the evidence was inadvertently discovered


by the police who had the right to be where
they are;

c. the evidence must be immediately


apparent, and

d. “plain view” justified mere seizure of


evidence without further search;

3. Search of a moving vehicle. Highly regulated by


the government, the vehicle’s inherent mobility
People of The Philippines vs Andre Marti
reduces expectation of privacy especially when its
transit in public thoroughfares furnishes a highly  Package of Marijuana to be sent abroad
reasonable suspicion amounting to probable cause
 Before sending the packages they wished to
that the occupant committed a criminal activity;
send to Switzerland, the Bureau of Posts
4. Consented warrantless search; followed SOP and suspected a weird smell
 Upon opening, they found the dried Marijuana
leaves

 The accused-appellant said that the lower court


erred in admitting in evidence the illegality of
search and seized objects contained in the four
parcels

 Issue: Whether or not the seizing of illegal


objects is legal

 Held: Appellant guilty beyond reasonable


doubt

 Rationale: Article III, Sec 2 &3 of the 1987


Constitution

You might also like